Elements of Slander (Oral Defamation) in Philippine Law
(A comprehensive doctrinal and practical guide)
1. Statutory Foundations
| Source | Provision | Key Points |
|---|---|---|
| Revised Penal Code (RPC), Art. 358 | “Slander” (oral defamation) | Defines the felony, sets gradations (grave vs. simple), and prescribes penalties. |
| RPC, Art. 361 | Proof of truth as a defense in criminal defamation. | |
| RPC, Art. 354 | Lists absolutely privileged and qualifiedly privileged communications. | |
| Republic Act 10951 (2017) | Adjusts monetary fines in Art. 358 to present‑day values. | |
| Civil Code, Art. 26 & Art. 33 | Gives an independent civil action for defamation, and under Art. 26 protects dignity, personality and honor. | |
| Rules of Criminal Procedure, Rule 110 | Venue/prosecution rules for written and oral defamation. |
2. Concept and Policy Rationale
Defamation is the generic term; libel covers written or similarly permanent defamatory media, while slander (also called oral defamation) punishes spoken words or gestures that tend to dishonor, discredit or contemptuously ridicule another. The State protects a person’s honor and reputation but balances it against constitutional freedoms of speech and of the press (Art. III, Sec. 4, 1987 Constitution).
3. Elements of the Felony
To secure a conviction, the prosecution must establish all of the following:
| # | Element | Explanation / Notes |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Defamatory Imputation | Words or gestures must naturally tend to cause dishonor, discredit, or contempt. Consider ordinary meaning, context, social norms, res gestae. |
| 2 | Publication/Communication to a Third Person | Any third party who hears the words or perceives the gestures suffices. The offender need not intend an audience; reckless exposure is enough. |
| 3 | Identifiable Person (Victim) | The victim must be identifiable either expressly (nominative) or by reasonable implication. Group defamation may lie if the group is small or the victim individually pointed to. |
| 4 | Malice (Presumed) | By Art. 354, every defamatory imputation is presumed malicious unless (a) it is a privileged communication, or (b) the accused proves good intention and justifiable motive. |
| 5 | Lack of a Complete Defense | Truth alone is insufficient; it must be (a) proven, (b) the imputation must concern a public interest, and (c) made with proper motive (Art. 361). |
4. Degrees of Slander
| Classification | Statutory Label | Test | Penalty (post‑RA 10951) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Grave Oral Defamation | “serious and insulting” words | Consider (a) character of the act, (b) relationship of parties, (c) social standing, (d) occasion, (e) intent. Examples: imputing a crime, calling a woman “prostitute”. | Arresto mayor max. to prisión correccional min. (6 months 1 day – 4 years 2 months) or fine ₱20,000 – ₱100,000, or both. |
| Simple (Slight) Oral Defamation | Not otherwise serious | Mild expletives, minor insults. | Arresto menor or fine ₱5,000 – ₱20,000, or both. |
Aggravating/mitigating circumstances (Arts. 14‑15 RPC) adjust the period to be applied.
5. Mens Rea and the Presumption of Malice
- General Rule: Malice is presumed once defamation is shown.
- Rebuttal: Accused must establish justifiable motive (e.g., grievance aired through proper channels) or that the utterance was privileged.
- Actual Malice (NY Times v. Sullivan standard) is not a constitutional requirement for criminal slander unless dealing with a public official/public figure and public interest speech (see Borjal v. Court of Appeals, G.R. 126466, Jan 14 1999).
6. Privileged Communications
| Type | Effect | Examples |
|---|---|---|
| Absolutely Privileged | No liability even if made in bad faith. | Statements by legislators in congressional sessions; official acts in judicial, quasi‑judicial or administrative proceedings by participants within scope. |
| Qualifiedly Privileged | Prima facie privileged; loses protection if made in bad faith or with malice in fact. | Fair and true report of official proceedings; private communications in the performance of a legal, moral, or social duty; employee evaluation. |
7. Defenses
- Truth + Good Motive + Justifiable Purpose (Art. 361)
- Privileged Communication (Art. 354)
- Lack of Publication (no third person heard/perceived)
- Identification Defect (victim not ascertainable)
- Prescription: Oral defamation prescribes in six months (Art. 90 RPC; counted from the date of utterance).
- Minor/Lack of Discernment (Art. 12 RPC)
- Mistake of Fact / Lack of Intent (rare in slander).
8. Venue and Jurisdiction
| Classification | First‑level Court | Venue Rule |
|---|---|---|
| Oral defamation (all degrees) | Municipal/Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC, MTC, MCTC) | Where the defamatory words were spoken or where the offended party resided at the time of commission (Rule 110, Sec. 15(b)). |
Information must specifically state the venue facts; otherwise, fatal.
9. Procedural Flow
- Affidavit‑Complaint (Barangay conciliation required if parties reside in same city/municipality and max. penalty ≤ 1 year, except if offense involves public officer in performance of official duties).
- Pre‑investigation by Prosecutor; filing of Information.
- Arraignment; plea bargaining sometimes allowed (e.g., stipulating to slight oral defamation).
- Trial: prosecution evidence (utterance, witnesses, audio/video), defense evidence (privilege, truth).
- Judgment; civil damages may be awarded in the criminal action under Rule 111.
- Appeal to RTC then CA; Rule 65 petition if jurisdictional error.
10. Civil Liability and Independent Civil Action
- Under Art. 33 Civil Code, “defamation” gives rise to an independent civil action for damages separate from the criminal case; proof by preponderance.
- Damages recoverable: moral, exemplary, nominal, and when proven, actual.
- Contributory conduct (e.g., provocation) may reduce damages (Capitol Broadcasting v. Datu, G.R. 175822, Apr 22 2015).
11. Notable Jurisprudence (Selected)**
| Case | G.R. No. / Date | Doctrinal Significance |
|---|---|---|
| People v. Sazon | G.R. 81519, Aug 24 1990 | Distinguished grave vs. slight oral defamation; context of words critical. |
| Borjal v. CA | G.R. 126466, Jan 14 1999 | Applied “public figure” doctrine; constitutional shield when speech on public interest. |
| Reyes v. People | G.R. 195275, Apr 12 2021 | Words uttered in heat of anger do not automatically downgrade gravity if context shows serious insult. |
| Fermin v. People | G.R. 157643, Mar 28 2008 | Explained privileged character of broadcast media commentary and requirement of actual malice for public figures. |
| People v. Velasco | 100 Phil. 640 (1957) | Gestures alone (spitting) may constitute slander by deed (Art. 359), not oral defamation. |
12. Relationship to Other Offenses
| Related Offense | Distinction from Oral Defamation |
|---|---|
| Libel (Art. 355) | Defamatory writing, printing, online post, radio/TV broadcast. Cyber‑libel (RA 10175) adds higher penalty. |
| Slander by Deed (Art. 359) | Defamatory act not consisting of words (e.g., slapping). |
| Unjust Vexation (Art. 287) | Annoyance/humiliation without defamatory imputation. |
| Grave Threats (Art. 282) | Threat + demand OR intent to scare; defamatory words optional. |
13. Effect of Republic Act 10951 on Penalties
RA 10951 adjusted monetary fines to reflect inflation:
| Before 2017 | After RA 10951 (Sec. 92) |
|---|---|
| Fine “not exceeding ₱6,000” for grave slander; “₱200” for slight | Grave: ₱20,000 – ₱100,000 Slight: ₱5,000 – ₱20,000 |
Imprisonment ranges in Art. 358 remain unchanged.
14. Intersection with Freedom of Expression
- The Bill of Rights protects speech on public issues, especially concerning public officers.
- Philippine courts now routinely apply actual malice (knowledge of falsity or reckless disregard) to criminal defamation involving public‑interest speech (Vasquez v. CA, G.R. 118971, Sept 15 1999).
- Nonetheless, Art. 358 remains valid; “chilling‑effect” arguments are assessed case‑by‑case.
15. Practical Guidance for Practitioners and Communicators
- Assess Gravity Early: Analyze words, occasion, and relationship; proper plea bargaining may avoid incarceration.
- Secure Independent Evidence: Recordings, corroborating witnesses, contemporaneous notes neutralize “he‑said‑she‑said”.
- Consider Barangay Conciliation: Often mandatory and may lead to amicable settlement.
- Invoke Privilege When Legitimate: Editorials on public corruption, intra‑corporate memos, and fair reports enjoy protection, but verify factual basis.
- Observe Prescriptive Deadlines: Six‑month period is short; victims must act swiftly or risk dismissal.
- Calibrate Public Apologies: A sincere retraction may mitigate penalties and reduce damages.
16. Conclusion
Oral defamation remains a living, evolving crime in Philippine law—anchored in a century‑old Penal Code yet continually re‑shaped by constitutional jurisprudence, statutory fine‑tuning, and the demands of digital discourse. Mastery of its elements, defenses, and procedural nuances equips litigators to protect both personal honor and the paramount freedom of expression.